Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

Personally I find it somewhat distressing that they can't even comprehend that when faced with a belief like that, given the choice between what ultimately is just a book and the reality of nature, they are not from my POV going to make the right choice.

The creationists are basically dead and buried. It's ten years since the Dover trial blew them up. What's left are figures of fun like Cowboy Bob and other dunderheads that no one listens to anymore. Hence so few nowadays show up on forums like ours.

Politically, the US fundamentalists have also moved on, backing Frankenstein monsters like senator Ted Cruz But that's beyond the remit of the BCSE.

Not sure our most recent member is actually a 'creationist' as we know them, no apparent interest in the pseudo-science side or understanding of the apologetics involved, just a hyper-literalist view of the Bible and its 'truth'.

'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'Miners against fascism.Hywel Francis

archaeologist55 wrote:Since the original conditions that started life, since the supposed original ancestor , and since the process of evolution cannot be observed at any time nor replicated by secular science, you are in no position to demand anything.

Since Noah's flood, let alone the special creation of all animal species, cannot be observed or replicated, you are in no position to demand than anyone believe in them.

replication is a subjective human criteria that exposes the weakness of the evolutionary theory. you cannot replicate the original conditions when life started to develop, you cannot replicate any of the supposed transitions that took place, you cannot replicate how the process of evolution works (any scientific experiment is just a declaration without verification).

scientific experiments do not start at square one but start with fully developed specimens and then the scientist declares viola evolution is true whenever a slight variation is detected forgetting that genetic information reacts in certain ways when combined with other genetic information. Such results do not exclude every alternative to evolution from producing the same results. In fact they keep the waters muddy and do not definitively prove that evolution is true.

In other words, no evolutionist has replicated the core of evolutionary thinking and teaching. It cheats by avoiding the fact that they do not know what the original conditions were, what were the original materials involved in the development of life, by using outside intelligent beings to manipulate the specimens, something not present in theory of evolution.

if anything all evolutionary experiments prove is that life demands an outside intelligent being to create life and that means those theories prove that God is needed and created all things as he said.

jon_12091 wrote:Not sure our most recent member is actually a 'creationist' as we know them, no apparent interest in the pseudo-science side or understanding of the apologetics involved, just a hyper-literalist view of the Bible and its 'truth'.

Where I find pseudo-science is in evolutionary science. Predictions are part of fortune telling an element heavily criticized and rejected by secular science yet the latter sees no problem in taking something from fortune telling when it suits their deceptive purposes.

Predictions do not provide evidence for the evolutionist claims because predictions cannot definitively prove evolution was responsible for the results nor can they exclude alternatives from producing the same results. Predictions mean nothing